Panasonic Lumix S PRO 70-200mm f/2.8 O.I.S. Lens - a viable alternative to the Leica 90-280 APO?

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Leica SL2 and I'm looking for a longer lens than my Leica Vario 24-90 and 105mm Sigma ART Macro, but admittedly, it won't be my most used lens. I used to own a the Leica 90-280 and can vouch for it's qualities,  but I'm not sure that I can justify $5000-$6000 even for a used lens right now.

Anybody out there use either the Sigma 100-400 or the Panasonic/LUMIX 70-200 F4 or 70-200 F/2.8 lenses? Would I really be giving up that much?

Will I run into the dreaded battery issue that I've heard so much about?

Thanks

-Brad

[ropo54]

1 hour ago, bherman01545 said:

I own a Leica SL2 and I'm looking for a longer lens than my Leica Vario 24-90 and 105mm Sigma ART Macro, but admittedly, it won't be my most used lens. I used to own a the Leica 90-280 and can vouch for it's qualities,  but I'm not sure that I can justify $5000-$6000 even for a used lens right now.

Anybody out there use either the Sigma 100-400 or the Panasonic/LUMIX 70-200 F4 or 70-200 F/2.8 lenses? Would I really be giving up that much?

Will I run into the dreaded battery issue that I've heard so much about?

Thanks

-Brad

There are some posts on the Leica "Other L Mount products".  Reach out to Rob (Tritentrue) who's owned the Sigma 100-400 and the Panasonic 70-200 2.8 along with 1.4x and 2x.  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bherman01545]

Thanks for the tip. I just did

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have the SIgma 100-400 and so far no issues. It's not *quite* at the levels of the 90-280 but it is very very good. SO much so I see it as my preferred travel lens over the 90-280, which I will keep.

Gordon

[bherman01545]

Interesting, thanks!

[MarkP]

I went to Antarctica in March with SL & SL2, 16-35 SL and 24-90 SL.  
 

I knew I’d need a longer lens but every time I’ve previously had a longer zoom it’s sat unused.  Therefore I couldn’t justify a 90-280 SL.  After speaking with Gordon I went with the Panasonic 4.0/70-200 as a compromise for price as well as bulk/weight.  
 

Was perfect for the job regarding IQ, excellent image stabilisation on the SL2, and weight/bulk, had no regrets, and I don’t have a lot of money tied up in an expensive stovepipe that now sits unused.

if you don’t need f2.8 then get I’d suggest the Panasonic 4.0/70-200.

Regards,

Mark

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My 90-280 was out of service for a few months after it got dropped onto a stone floor.  During that time, I got the Lumix 70-200/2.8.  Some reports in this forum left me feeling that there would be a loss of image quality going with the 70-200/4.0 or with the 1.4 and 2x extenders,  but I expected that using the Lumix lens on an S1R, I would be likely to get exceptional stabilization.  And I don't currently need to have all 280 or 400mm of possible focal length.  It seems to be just as heavy as the 90-280, and the S1R is more massive than my SL2s, but the combination works well.  Very good stabilization and sharp but probably not the highest contrast images.  The 90-280 finally came back from Wetzlar.  They "repaired" it by sending me a new one.  The delay in repair was simply that Customer Service is low on the priority queue for receiving new units to give away. I think that the 90-280 is indeed a sharper tool.  The next time a good opportunity arrises, I'll take some comparison pictures.

[Ingo]

I take the 70-200/f4.0 when I want to travel 'light' and don't need the extra mm of the 90-280 at the longer end. 

I find the 70-200 really good for every day usage but the 90-280 is exceptional. I've never used a zoom lens that is this good.  

[scott kirkpatrick]

OK, comparison time, with the Leica 90-280 and the Lumix 70-200/2.8.  To get the best stabiiization I use each long zoom on its native platform since combining IBIS and OIS is a dark art, requiring information that is not shared across the L-mount consortium.  The 90-280 is a bit longer, but the Lumix camera and lens feel more massive.  I would guess their total weights are about the same.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

U1050375 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

I've been following a construction project -- a new national library of a unique shape, with a continuously curving roof that features various measn of getting light onto the vast openspaces below.  Completing that roof is a months-long project.  Here's how it looked this morning, as seen with the 70-200@200 (1 1/3 shot pano):

P1033393 Panorama by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr  (click through for 100% rendering.

Next I'll compare an small crop of this with the same scene shot with the Leica combination a week or two ago.

P1033393 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

and U1050322 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Is it obvious which is which?

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by scott kirkpatrick

[leicamr]

Hello Scott,

The second shot is very easy on the eye. I have just taken delivery of the Panasonic 70 - 200 f4 for use on my SL. My brief playtime with it using light at the end of day,  I am very pleased with it, especially considering the cost. But seeing your comparative shots (Thanks for posting), my desire for the 90 -280 remains. 

 

Mark

[beewee]

Wow, I’m impressed with the differences between the cropped panos. 

The Panasonic image look like it was digitally zoomed whereas the Leica image looks much more realistic and organic. I would be curious to see how much of this is because of the body and how much is the lens.

[michali]

On 1/5/2021 at 10:33 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have the SIgma 100-400 and so far no issues. It's not *quite* at the levels of the 90-280 but it is very very good. SO much so I see it as my preferred travel lens over the 90-280, which I will keep.

Gordon

+1 I'm finding that more & more I'm using the Sigma 100-400mm on the SL2 over the VE90-280mm L, which I'm also going to keep.

[RBB]

3 hours ago, beewee said:

 I would be curious to see how much of this is because of the body and how much is the lens

Would like to see that too, I own the Panasonic 70-200 f/2.8 and are very happy with the results, but the presented difference is staggering.

[tom0511]

I own the 70200 Pana and the Leic 90280.

I think the Pana is nice and compact compared to the 90280. I dont see any real weekness of the PANA 70200, its sharp with nice contrast and good bokeh. However I would say the shots from the Leica 90280 have a certain "brilliance" which I rate higher that the Pana70200. SO for me - I allways use the Pana if I dont want to carry the 90280 and I dont need the longer focal length range.

[Ktsa5239]

I’m also currently using the pano 70-200 f4  on my SL2 for my bird shoots. Mainly because I can’t afford or justify the 90-280SL lens.

I’m also considering the sigma 100-400mm for more reach but it’s not available in Australia yet it seems. Does anyone know if the newer DN model the same as the old DG except for the mount?

thanks

[Boojay]

1 hour ago, Ktsa5239 said:

I’m also currently using the pano 70-200 f4  on my SL2 for my bird shoots. Mainly because I can’t afford or justify the 90-280SL lens.

I’m also considering the sigma 100-400mm for more reach but it’s not available in Australia yet it seems. Does anyone know if the newer DN model the same as the old DG except for the mount?

thanks

No, the Sigma 100-400 was supposed to be a complete re-design.

[caissa]

The SL 90-280 is the best lens I ever used. (And the SL 16-35, but that’s another topic.) It is shown again and again. This is the problem of the 100-400, it is too close. I wait for a 150-600 (sports or contemporary, new construction or old) in L-mount. If its quality is similar to the 100-400 then it is what I need.

For a while I hoped Pana would bring a 4/400 maybe with Fresnel lenses. To be used with the extenders. But probably rather not, in these hard times. (Or maybe for the Olympics in Japan ?!)

Edited January 10, 2021 by caissa

[Richardgb]

On 1/9/2021 at 5:32 AM, beewee said:

Wow, I’m impressed with the differences between the cropped panos. 

The Panasonic image look like it was digitally zoomed whereas the Leica image looks much more realistic and organic. I would be curious to see how much of this is because of the body and how much is the lens.

I think we need to be careful. As I understand it, the comparison is between the lenses used on their respective native systems; as such, the camera's handling of the image data are a factor. Put the Pana lens on the Leica and vice-versa may yield different results.

[caissa]

1 hour ago, Richardgb said:

I think we need to be careful. As I understand it, the comparison is between the lenses used on their respective native systems; as such, the camera's handling of the image data are a factor. Put the Pana lens on the Leica and vice-versa may yield different results.

The 90-280 was/is also an extraordinary lens on the S1R. We know since more than a year. No reason to expect now suddenly completely different results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[beewee]

4 hours ago, Richardgb said:

I think we need to be careful. As I understand it, the comparison is between the lenses used on their respective native systems; as such, the camera's handling of the image data are a factor. Put the Pana lens on the Leica and vice-versa may yield different results.

I get the trade offs but it doesn’t mean the experiment would be useless. I feel it’s still very much worth performing just to confirm unverified presumptions.